Construction delay analysis

Delay analysis that connects the programme to the facts.

Independent critical-path and delay-causation analysis for live projects, claims, negotiations and formal disputes in Singapore and across the region.
Overview

A credible delay opinion requires more than a software output.

Delay analysis should explain what controlled completion, how that position changed, which events affected the critical or near-critical work, and what the project records support.

The appropriate method depends on the contract, available programme data, quality of contemporaneous records, timing of the assessment and the question the analysis must answer. The method is selected and explained rather than applied mechanically.

Work can be undertaken during delivery to support decisions and mitigation, or retrospectively to test claims and prepare a clear account for negotiation, mediation, adjudication or arbitration.

Scope of support

Focused analysis across the issues that matter.

Baseline programme and logic review
Critical-path and near-critical path assessment
Time impact analysis and prospective modelling
Windows or time-slice analysis
As-planned versus as-built analysis
Collapsed as-built and but-for testing where appropriate
Concurrent delay and pacing assessment
Delay-event chronology and cause-and-effect mapping
Mitigation, acceleration and recovery review
Programme data-quality and reliability assessment
Typical engagements

Flexible support for a defined decision or workstream.

Independent review of an EOT submission
Live-project delay assessment
Pre-arbitration merits review
Delay support to legal counsel
Peer review of expert analysis
Deliverables

Clear outputs designed for their intended audience.

Independent delay analysis report
Critical-path narrative and programme exhibits
Delay-event register and chronology
Window-by-window findings
Claim review memorandum
Executive decision brief
Negotiation or mediation presentation
Technical support to legal counsel or appointed experts
How the work is approached

A structured and auditable process.

01

Define the contractual and decision question.

02

Collect and test programme files, updates, narratives and records.

03

Establish the reliable baseline and actual sequence of work.

04

Identify critical periods and test the effect of relevant events.

05

Separate fact, assumption, analysis and opinion.

06

Present findings in a form suited to the intended audience.

Frequently asked questions

Practical answers before the engagement begins.

Which delay-analysis method is best?
There is no universally best method. The appropriate approach depends on the contract, records, programme quality, timing and question to be answered. A strong analysis explains why its method is suitable and how limitations are managed.
Can an analysis be completed without native programme files?
Sometimes, but the limitations can be material. PDF schedules, progress records and contemporaneous documents may support an assessment, although native files normally provide stronger logic, calendar and progress data.
Does critical delay automatically prove prolongation cost?
No. Time entitlement, critical delay, disruption and prolongation cost are related but distinct. Each causal and valuation step should be demonstrated.
Can you review an opposing delay report?
Yes. Reviews can test method selection, data integrity, critical-path reasoning, concurrency, assumptions and whether conclusions follow from the evidence.
Discuss a matter

Clear advice starts with understanding the issue.

Contact Constructive Advisory to discuss a construction claim, delay issue, programme review, dispute-support requirement or potential collaboration.